The Artists


 * Jim Duignan
 * Pablo Helguera (BFA 1993)
 * Iñigo Manglano-Ovalle (MFA 1985)
 * Dan Peterman
 * J. Morgan Puett (MFA 1984)
 * Michael Rakowitz
 * Tamms Year Ten and Laurie Jo Reynolds (MFA 2000)
 * Rirkrit Tiravanija (MFA 1986)
 * Temporary Services

How were the artists in Proximity of Consciousness chosen to be in the show?
Possible reasons:
 * 1) They have worked with Mary Jane in the past. As such, they have established a familiar dialogue and completed successful shows or projects with her.
 * 2) They are artists active in Chicago- based social practice. Their work is either situated in or driven by current circumstances in Chicago.
 * 3) Their works capture important ideological relations to Chicago as a site of social activism and important social activist figures in the past, such as A Plea for Playgrounds by Jim Duignan and its reference to the Hull House, and of course, Pablo Helguera's Adams-Dewey Gymnasium.
 * 4) They're famous.

What do these artists share in common, and how do they differ?
More than half the artists in the show were graduates of SAIC. How does it benefit the artist and institution when a show is curated and includes alumni? How important was it to include artists who are SAIC alumni in the show? This question raises how "formal" shows organized in Sullivan Galleries and the Art Institute, outside of the Student Union Galleries, never seem to exhibit the work of existing students. Is there some kind of "street cred" an artist needs to gain outside of school before considered to be reputable enough to be exhibited in an influential institutional setting? Is this "street cred" used more in favor of the self-promotion of the institution's reputation than as a means to provide opportunities to its alumni? Are existing students' works ignored because they don't have any "street cred" to up the institution's reputation and influence in the contemporary art scene?

There are the works of artists like Tiravanija that address mainly the issues of '''social interaction. And then you have works like Tamms Year Ten with Reynolds which directly address social issues of the present. Helguera deals more with the history''' of social activism.

One could say that the works of Manglano-Ovalle, Rakowitz, Puett and Duignan are more like traditional art objects by way of sculpture and installation. Specifically, the work of Rakowitz within the gallery setting seem to strive to document a social practice process that existed mostly outside of the gallery.

By comparison, Manglano-Ovalle's work might be seen as more a conceptual sculpture, with its formalist elements and emphasis on material. Its social message is not as apparent at first glance as compared to the other works in this show when we look at this piece. Then again, how many pieces in the show can we say can exist intelligibly to its audience without an accompanying writeup?

On Storytelling: Keys to Social Practice Lie in Artist’s Discussion of Work

 * A Proximity of Consciousness is an effort to display Social Practice artwork without relying on documentation. This means projects take on new lives as minimalist sculpture (Manglano-Ovalle), working installations (Publishing Clearing House), installations that seek users (Lori Jo and Helguera’s rooms) and documentation thinly veiled via display as anthropological objects. The work speaks to visitors in different ways, some conveying the true essence of the project while others are too vacant. Rules for interaction with social work that has become display is so inconsistent, it can leave a visitor frustrated.


 * Proximity is attempting to bolster it’s commitment to the dialogic component of the work by facilitating an immense amount of programming around the exhibition, some public and some not. This includes multiple evenings of programming around resistance in a prison nation, artist lunches and a three day symposium. Another aspect of this programming is a intercollegiate consortium, made up of 40 students from around the various universities in Chicago, chosen through applications or hand selected due to their work. Artists from the show are given the space to fully elaborate on their work, sharing anecdotes, research strategies and allowing the participants of the work to elaborate on their experiences. Since the use of “outsiders” or “communities” is often the most contested aspect of Social Practice work, it is enlightening to hear from these participants directly.


 * At one of these consortium events, Michael Rakowitz had the Iraqi veterans who participated in Every Weapon Is a Tool If You Hold It Right  speak in length uninhibited about their time in Iraq (or in one’s case, his successful attempt to spare his entire company from getting deployed in the first place), their time with Michael and the project, including how they interacted with the public at Navy Pier. The fisherman who taught them all how to catch carp for the artwork was also present and absolutely delightful in his dedication to conservation, urban fishing issues and the histories of racism in both fishing and of carp itself. It is these interactions and dialogues that do the heavy lifting for the work, more so than any conceptual manifestation can do. Rakowitz himself said at the event that artist’s talks have become the most important way to present his practice, more so than any other format. Which gives a particular responsibility those who wish to engage with the work at the exhibition, and asks paitence of them as well when the work does not appear to communicate the dialogic aspect of the practice.

Changes in perceptions of social practice over time
Chicago exhibitiosn for comparison: Proximity (SAIC), FEAST (UofC, SMART museum) and Culture in Action (Sculpture Chicago) 

Although FEAST at the University of Chicago's Smart museum utilized Social Practice artists and socially engaged work, its main focus was the idea of '''radical hospitality. '''This included conversations on how food engages a set of pre-determined cultural manners, how these differ within an urban setting, how they can be enacted as an art practice and how the act of sharing food is key to human experience.

Likewise, Culture in Action argues a very different thesis to FEAST and Proximity. Culture in Action was established as an alternative to public art as we understand it (i.e. bronze sculpture) and tried to "activate urban communities not considered part of the museum- and gallery-going public" (Source) with social sculpture. Some of these were socially conscious objects while other took the form of community based activities and projects. 

Proximity is ultimately more interested in a larger picture, beyond what even the objects represent within the space. What does it mean to have a lived practice, when your studio is anything but isolated, when there is no separation of identity and career? What does it mean to dedicate one's life to an artistic practice that doesn't produce tangible projects? Proximity is more interested in the artist engaged in social practice, the canonization of work and the practice itself.

Proximity could be trying to canonize social practice in order that it can be applied in different settings. The show is taking these (generally) new ideas and placing them within an art gallery in order that they can become validated. This validation expands these social practices into a wider network. While this seems to be what Proximity is looking to accomplish, the validation within this higher art world is not without its previous baggage.

Is it ever too early in time to canonize social practice? This is a question raised out of genuine curiosity. How is canon created? Should social practice ever be canonical? Can its discourse be as organic and in flux as the process of social practice is? Can social practice revise the whole idea of canon altogether to a collective conscious of social, cultural and political phenomena subject to new interpretations and definitions over time?

Another question to raise is: given how Chicago and SAIC-centric the show is, to what extent can the documentation and discussion provided by Proximity be considered an authoritative source of information and opinions on social practice? Descriptions of the show include confident assertions of how Chicago is a springboard for social practice and its worldwide prevalence, and linking the city to the school as a pioneer in art and design. (Source) If a school organizes and curates a program like A Lived Practice, can its perceptions about the history of social practice be skewed by the role it plays in it? What if the school is simply jumping on the newest trend in contemporary art and now seeking to congratulate itself for pioneering it? Then again, to what extent did the show have to be framed in such a manner to meet the personal interests of financial stakeholders and earn their financial support?

In that case, does Proximity provide that flexibility and a platform to build upon, dissect, re-interpret and change the canon of social practice?